Anil K.Narendran, J.

1. These appeals arises out of the common award dated 30.11.2009 in O.P.(MV)Nos.680/2004, 690/2004 and 768/2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara. In the accident alleged to have occurred on 25.1.2004 at 1.15 p.m., a car bearing registration No.KL-01-F-48, driven by the 3rd respondent capsized resulting injuries to the appellants herein, who were the passengers in that vehicle.

2. M.A.C.A.No.440/2010 is filed by the applicant in O.P. (MV)No.680/2004, who was aged 14 years at the time of accident. M.A.C.A.No.460/2010 is filed by the applicant in O.P. (MV) No.768/2004, who was aged 52 years and working as Junior Superintendent in Tirupuram Grama Panchayat at that time and M.A.C.A.No.461/2010 by the applicant in O.P.(MV)No.690/2004, who was a farmer aged 45 years at that time. The claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident. The compensation claimed in O.P.(MV) No.680/2004 and 768/2004 is Rs.50,000/-each and that in O.P.(MV)No.690/2004 is Rs.2,00,000/-.

3. According to the applicants, at the time of accident, they were travelling in a car bearing registration No.KL-01-F-48, which was driven by the 3rd respondent, along Balaramapuram-Vanikatheruvu-Kattakkada road, from west to east. Upon reaching Thannikuzhi, the 3rd respondent abruptly applied break, while the car was running at a very high speed, as a result of which the car capsized and fell into a ditch and the applicants sustained serious injuries.

According to the applicants, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 3rd respondent. After the accident, the applicants were taken to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, for treatment. In connection with the said accident, the Police has registered Crime No.33/2003 of Balaramapuram Police Station. The 1st respondent is the registered owner and the 2nd respondent is the insured owner of the car involved in the accident, which was driven at the time of accident by the 3rd respondent. The 4th respondent is the insurer of the said car.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 to 3 remained exparte and the 4th respondent-insurer alone contested the case. The insurer filed written statement admitting the insurance coverage of car bearing registration No.KL-01-F-48, which stood insured in the name of the 2nd respondent, at the time of the accident. The transfer of ownership of the car in favour of the 1st respondent was never intimated and hence the 4th respondent is not liable to indemnify the 1st respondent. The insurer has also denied any negligence on the part of the 3rd respondent. According to them, the 3rd respondent had to apply break to save a pedestrian, who abruptly crossed the road.

5. The Tribunal ordered joint trial of all the three claim petitions. On the side of the applicants, Exhibits A1 to A18 were marked and Exhibits B1 to B3, B3(a) and B3(b) were marked on the side of the respondents. No oral evidence was adduced by both sides.

6. The Tribunal, by a common award dated 30.11.2009, dismissed all the three claim petitions holding that, the mere production of the First Information Report, Scene Mahazar and the report of the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector concerned are not sufficient to prove the accident in the manner alleged. The Tribunal further held that, though the applicants have produced medical records they failed to prove that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 3rd respondent in driving the car and they suffered permanent disablement as a result of the accident, entitling them to claim compensation in claims filed under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

7. The applicants are in appeal before us against the said common award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, in dismissing their claim petitions. The a